Early and late paternal effects of reactive oxygen species in semen on embryo development after intracytoplasmic sperm injection

Figures & data

Table 1. Patients’ characteristics and semen analyses (n = 77).

Age of husbands (years, mean ± SD)		39.4 ± 7
Age of wives (years, mean ± SD)		37.4 ± 4.6
Semen analysis (number of patients)	Oligoasthenozoospermia	46
	Oligozoospermia	25
	Asthenozoospermia	3
	Normozoospermia	3
Semen parameters (mean ± SD)	Volume (mL)	2.65 ± 1.33
	Concentration (×10^6/mL)	17.1 ± 19.6
	Motility (%)	18.5 ± 16.0
	VSL (μm/sec)	17.5 ± 7.93
	VCL (μm/sec)	45.7 ± 21.6
	Linearity	0.38 ± 0.15
	mALH (μm)	1.15 ± 0.65
	BCF (Hz)	11.8 ± 4.10

Abbreviations: BCF: beat-cross frequency; mALH: mean amplitude of lateral head displacement; VCL: curvilinear velocity; VSL: straight-line velocity.

Figure 1. Experimental Design (A) Flowchart of how the eggs and embryos were divided into groups for between-group comparisons; the fertilized and nonfertilized groups and the good-cleavage-embryo and non-developed-embryo groups were compared. (B) Flowchart of how the fertilized embryos were divided to compare the good-quality-blastocyst and poor-quality-embryo groups.

Table 2. Comparison of ROS levels in semen between the fertilized and nonfertilized groups.

	887 Eggs		P-value
	Fertilized group (n = 580)	Nonfertilized group (n = 307)
Total ROS (RLU)	54,204 ± 7,454	52,018 ± 9,052	0.858

Note: Data are presented as mean ± standard error.

Abbreviations: RLU, relative light units; ROS: reactive oxygen species.

Table 3. Comparison of ROS levels in semen between the good-cleavage-embryo and non-developed-embryo groups.

	580 Fertilized embryos		P-value
	Good-cleavage-embryo group (n = 345)	Non-developed-embryo group (n = 235)
Total ROS (RLU)	35,645 ± 6,934	81,451 ± 45,234	0.0026

Note: Data are presented as mean ± standard error.

Abbreviations: RLU, relative light units; ROS: reactive oxygen species.

Figure 2. Comparison of reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels (A) Comparison of reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels between the fertilized and nonfertilized eggs. The mean (± standard error) ROS levels were not significantly different between the fertilized and nonfertilized groups (P = 0.858). (B) Comparison of ROS levels between the good-cleavage-embryo and non-developed-embryo groups. The ROS level was higher in the non-developed-embryo group than in the good-cleavage-embryo group, which was statistically significant (P = 0.0026). (C) Comparison of ROS levels between the good-quality-embryo and poor-quality-embryo groups. The ROS level was lower in the good-quality-blastocyst group than in the poor-quality-embryo group, which was statistically significant (P = 0.015).

Table 4. Comparison of ROS levels in semen between the good-quality-blastocyst and poor-quality-embryo groups.

	326 Fertilized embryos		P-value
	Good-quality-blastocyst group (n = 58)	Poor-quality-embryo group (n = 268)
Total ROS (RLU)	27,916 ± 16,336	81,780 ± 14,498	0.015

Note: Data are presented as mean ± standard error.

Abbreviations: RLU, relative light units; ROS: reactive oxygen species.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available upon request from the corresponding author, TT.